Administration  Departments 
By  MELVILLE  W.  MIX 

President  of  the  Dodge  Manufacturing  Company 
THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  DEPARTMENT 

I have  been  asked  to  address  you  on  the  subject  of  administrative 
departments.  This  request  was  subsequently  made  more  specific  by  a 
telegram  which  I received  from  Mr.  Porter,  advising  me  that  the 
v-^dministrative  departments  were  understood  to  cover  the  board  of 
* directors,  the  executive  committee,  the  general  manager,  planning,  en- 
Kigineering,  and  the  legal  departments  of  the  busmess. 

It  is  impossible,  in  the  brief  time  at  our  disposal,  to  cover  every 
^^one  of  these  subjects  in  anything  approaching  a detailed  and  adequate 
manner.  I have,  therefore,  chosen  to  confine  my  discussion  to  a con- 
Xpsideration  of  the  administrative  departments  as  a whole,  meaning 
^thereby  those  departments  of  the  business  which  have  to  do  with  ^e 
direction  and  operation  of  the  business  as  distinct  from  the  selling 

:^and  manufacturing  departments. 

The  final  success  of  any  business  depends  upon  the  efficiency  ot  its 
administrative  department.  The  administrative  department  is  the 
V brains  of  the  enterprise.  A strong,  efficient  organization,  directed  by 
an  incapable  administrative  department,  is  ineffective,  and  necessarily 
-""'falls  short  of  achieving  the  results  which  the  same  organization, 
^ capably  directed,  would  secure. 

< Organized,  as  we  are,  to  study  every  phase  of  efficiency  in  connec- 
tion  with  industrial  effort,  it  becomes  a part  of  our  work  to  study  from 
o the  broad  point  of  view  the  efficiency  and  deficiency  of  the  adminis- 
.ji^trative  departments  of  American  business. 

THE  TEST  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  EFFICIENCY 

We  all  recognize  that  efficiency  is  the  relation  between  the  deter- 
O,  - mined  standard  and  the  actual  performance.  Before  we  can  speak  of 

Read  at  the  first  meeting  of  the  Efficiency  Society,  heid  in  New  York  City,  March  .8 
_ and  19,  1912* 

3—1 


Kvb'i'So- 

efficiency  concretely,  we  must  measure  the  standard  and  the  perform- 
ance. To  measure  accurately  the  performance  of  an  administrative 
department  is  impossible;  to  set  a definite  standard,  equally  so. 

Obviously  the  idea  of  every  administrative  department  must  be 
to  secure  the  greatest  possible  success  for  the  business  operated.  The 
only  difficulty  is  to  define  the  greatest  possible  success.  Is  it  to  extract 
for  the  shareholders  or  owners  the  largest  possible  profits?  It  does 
not  seem  so.  To  operate  a business  with  the  greatest  degree  of  suc- 
cess includes  far  more  than  that. 

I believe  that  it  involves  a triple  service,  and  that  each  master  must 
be  served  faithfully. 

(1)  Capital,  as  represented  by  the  owners. 

(2)  Labor,  as  represented  by  the  employees. 

(3)  The  consumer,  as  represented  by  the  public. 

Properly  to  correlate  and  measure  the  various  factors  in  this  equa- 
tion would  require  a more  complicated  slide  rule  than  that  astute 
mathematician,  Barth,  ever  conjured  up  in  his  wildest  mathematical 
dreams.  But,  while  it  is  impossible  to  measure  the  efficiency  of  an 
administrative  department  in  a scientific  way,  a measurement  of  its 
efficiency  in  terms  of  the  various  services  it  must  perform,  is  con- 
stantly being  made  by  the  owners,  the  employees,  and  the  public. 

It  is  as  much  a part  of  the  duty  of  this  organization  to  study  and 
promote  efficiency  of  executives  and  the  administrative  departments 
which  they  dominate,  as  it  is  to  study  and  promote  the  efficient  use  of 
material  and  the  efficient  operation  of  labor. 

You  will  no  doubt  agree  with  me  in  the  statement  that  any  admin- 
istrative department — speaking  of  the  subject  in  the  broad  sense — 
analyzes  to  the  basic  element  of  some  one  dominating  individual,  no 
matter  what  his  official  position  may  be.  The  efficiency  of  the  admin- 
istration of  the  business  which  he  dominates  is  a reflection  of  his  own 
efficiency.  Its  deficiencies  are,  in  a way,  the  summing  up  of  his  own 
deficiencies.  If  we  consider  then  the  efficiency  of  the  dominating 
executive,  we  will,  at  the  same  time,  be  considering  the  efficiency  of 
the  administrative  departments  which  he  directs. 


THE  DEFICIENCY  OF  EXECUTIVES 

I believe  that  the  great  majority  of  executives  in  this  country  are 
not  more  than  25  per  cent,  efficient,  measured  by  the  standard  of  per- 
formance of  the  comparatively  few  really  efficient  ones.  In  other 
words,  I believe  that  a greater  percentage  of  inefficiency  exists  in  the 
3—2 


administrative  departments  of  our  business  than  exists  in  our  shops 
and  clerical  departments.  I believe  this  to  be  as  true  for  big  business 
as  it  is  for  little  business.  I believe  that  this  lack  of  efficiency  in  big 
business  is  more  likely  to  increase  than  diminish,  as  time  goes  on. 

I realize  that  in  making  these  statements  I am  laying  myself  open 
to  challenge  and  criticism ; however,  they  are  made  with  sincerity  and 
deliberation ; a careful  study  of  a great  many  business  administrations 
made  by  myself  and  my  associates  in  the  last  fifteen  years  will  bear 
out  the  statement.  ' 

Don’t  think  that  I am  speaking  from  any  imagined  position  of 
superiority.  I do  not  fail  to  recognize  the  deficiencies  in  my  own 
administration  of  the  business  which  I dominate — we  are  all  tarred 
by  the  same  stick.  A redeeming  feature — if  I have  any — is  that  I am 
able  to  recognize  some  of  these  deficiencies  and  struggle  against  them. 

I often  remind  myself  of  a man  I knew  in  the  little  Illinois  village 
where  I first  had  acquaintanceship  with  real  work  thrust  upon  me. 
This  man  kept  the  general  store  in  our  town,  and,  bad  as  general 
stores  were  in  those  days,  this  one  was  worse.  Al.  Becker  was  the 
chief  executive,  and  dominated  the  administrative  department,  which 
consisted  of  himself  and  a worn-out  old  darkey,  who  also  filled  the 
position  of  chief  of  the  shipping  and  sales  departments. 

Becker  was  a man  of  great  fertility  of  imagination,  and  full  of 
ambition  for  better  things ; he  would  spend  hours  with  his  customers, 
explaining  all  the  things  he  was  going  to  do  to  that  store  as  soon  as 
he  got  around  to  it ! Better  fixtures,  a horse  and  wagon,  stocks  that 
never  gave  out — all  that  a storekeeper  and  his  public  could  want — 
‘‘as  soon  as  he  got  around  to  it.”  The  only  trouble  was,  he  never  did. 

At  last  Brother  Martin,  who  had  waited  patiently  for  two  weeks 
for  a new  pipe  which  he  needed,  and  which  Becker  had  promised  would 
be  in  in  a day  or  two,  lost  patience,  and,  after  expressing  his  feelings 
with  more  eloquence  than  propriety,  wound  up  by  saying  in  a wither- 
ing tone:  “So  you’re  waiting  till  you  get  around  to  it,  are  you? 
Guess  you  don’t  wait  till  you  get  around  to  your  victuals,  do  you? 
If  you  did,  you  might  starve.” 

Becker  looked  grieved.  “Martin,”  he  said,  “don’t  you  go  makin’ 
no  foolish  talk  about  waitin’  to  get  around  to  victuals;  victuals  have 
to  be  et.” 

That  may  be  the  trouble  with  most  of  us,  gentlemen — if  we  don’t 
have  to  do  things,  many  of  us  don’t  do  them  as  expeditiously  as  we 
should. 

Returning  to  efficiencies  of  administrative  departments,  let  us  con- 

3—3 


sider,  first,  some  of  the  deficiencies  of  the  administrative  department ; 
second,  the  reason  for  these  deficiencies;  and  third,  the  steps  that  can 
be  taken,  whether  stimulated  internally  or  externally,  to  correct  and 
improve  these  deficiencies. 

INADEQUATE  RETURNS  ON  CAPITAL  INVESTED 

According  to  the  ordinarily  accepted  standard  for  business  success, 
the  first  great  deficiency  is  the  failure  of  the  administrative  depart- 
ment to  secure  for  the  business  which  it  is  directing,  an  adequate  profit 
or  return  on  the  capital  invested. 

I think  you  will  all  agree  with  me  that  the  actual  capital  invested 
in  any  enterprise,  outside  of  a natural  monopoly  where  the  returns  are 
as  nearly  sure  as  anything  human  can  be,  is  entitled  to  a return  of  at 
least  15  per  cent,  after  adequate  charges  for  depreciation  and  mainte- 
nance have  been  deducted.  How  many  businesses  in  this  country,  out- 
side of  those  controlling  a natural  monopoly,  are  securing  this  return 
on  the  actual  capital  involved?  Unquestionably  a great  many,  but  a 
great  many  more  are  not. 

Too  much  capital  in  a business  is  more  disastrous  from  the  stand- 
point of  net  results  than  too  little  capital.  A careful  study  of  the 
capital  involved  and  the  profit  secured  in  the  various  lines  of  industry 
reported  on  by  the  United  States  Census  Bureau  will  show  that  in 
the  great  majority  of  industries  the  return  on  capital  is  considerably 
less  than  7 per  cent. 

There  are  many  notable  exceptions,  and  there  are  many  concerns 
that  are  making  much  more  than  this  from  the  capital  which  they  use. 
This  merely  shows  how  efficient  an  administrative  department  can  be 
from  the  profit  point  of  view,  and  the  wide  margin  that  exists  between 
the  theoretical  efficiencies  and  the  actual  efficiencies  which  most  of 
them  obtain. 

A grave  deficiency  of  the  administrative  department  of  many  of 
our  large  businesses  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  administered  more 
for  the  benefit  of  the  speculator  than  for  the  small  investor,  who  prob- 
ably owns  the  majority  of  their  shares. 

Where  the  capital  with  which  a business  is  operated  is  supplied 
by  a number  of  small  stockholders,  each  owning  a few  shares,  and 
representing  by  their  very  number  a relative  lack  of  individual  impor- 
tance, unable  to  exercise  the  control  which  concentrated  capital  is  able 
to  exercise,  the  responsibility  of  the  administrative  department  to  the 
capital  becomes  an  even  more  important  factor  than  in  the  case  where 

3—4 


the  responsibility  is  to  capital  in  a large  mass.  How  many  times  this 
attitude  on  the  part  of  the  administrative  departments  dominating  our 
larger  businesses  has  been  violated  in  the  past,  it  is  unnecessary  for 
me  to  tell  you. 

Measured  in  terms  of  efficiency,  the  presidents,  boards  of  directors, 
or  general  managers  who  operate  their  business  from  the  point  of  view 
of  stimulating  speculative  interest  in  their  stock,  of  making  it  a fea- 
ture in  the  stock  market,  are  more  inefficient  than  the  common  laborer 
who  sleeps  away  his  day  in  some  secluded  corner  of  the  factory. 

FAILURE  TO  BUILD  FOR  A FUTURE 

The  inefficiency  of  many  of  our  administrative  departments  is  their 
failure  to  build  the  business  on  a permanent  basis.  They  intend  to  go 
ahead  from  day  to  day,  making  goods,  and  selling  them  at  as  large  a 
profit  as  they  can  secure.  They  trust  to  lower  prices  and  the  efforts 
of  their  sales  department  to  keep  their  goods  moving. 

There  is,  in  my  opinion,  no  more  definite  responsibility  laid  on  the 
administrative  department  of  any  business  than  to  build  for  a perma- 
nent future.  Many  administrative  departments  consider  that  money 
spent  in  advertising  trade-marks  and  establishing  trade-names  with 
the  public  are  direct  operating  expenses.  It  seems  to  me  that  expendi- 
tures of  this  nature  should  be  regarded  as  investment  rather  than  as 
expense. 

Consider  some  of  the  well-known  trade-marks  which  have  been 
established  in  this  country,  and  which  have  created  a demand  for  the 
goods  sold  under  these  trade-marks,  which  will  continue  for  years, 
irrespective  of  price  or  other  consideration.  Take  such  names  as 
Steinway,  Tiffany,  Dunlap,  Heinz,  McCormick,  Castoria,  Sapolio.  Is 
it  not  true  that  the  money  and  effort  which  have  been  spent  in  making 
these  trade-marks  what  they  are,  constitute  one  of  the  greatest  assets 
of  the  business  which  controls  them?  Have  not  the  administrative 
departments  of  the  business  which  have  developed  and  established  such 
trade-marks  shown  a remarkably  high  degree  of  efficiency  in  this  most 
important  feature  of  business  success? 

FAILURE  TO  MAINTAIN  PROPER  WAGE  STANDARDS 

Going  over  the  elements  by  which  the  efficiency  of  the  administra- 
tive department  should  be  judged,  and  considering  the  results  accom- 
plished in  connection  with  the  duty  which  the  administrative  depart- 

3—5 


ment  owes  to  labor — the  employee — it  is  as  much  a part  of  the  duty 
of  the  administrative  department  to  pay  its  labor  a wage  that  will 
enable  it  to  live  according  to  American  standards  as  it  is  to  provide 
the  capital  involved  with  an  adequate  return.  Here  you  will  find  that 
most  of  the  administrative  departments  which  are  efficient  from  the 
return  on  capital  point  of  view  are  sadly  deficient. 

Consider  the  labor  condition  of  many  of  our  large  corporations 
which  are  making  more  than  adequate  return  on  capital,  and  you 
will  find  that  in  most  of  these  cases  their  average  wage  is  below  the 
standard  agreed  on  as  capable  of  sustaining  family  life  in  accordance 
with  our  American  standard.  It  is  inefficiency  of  this  sort  which  is 
creating  the  spirit  of  unrest  and  the  growth  of  socialism,  which  are 
becoming  so  marked  a feature  in  our  national  life  at  the  present 
time. 

Failure  to  maintain  proper  wage  standards  is  a breach  of  trust, 
not  only  to  the  employee,  but  also  to  capital.  The  dissatisfaction  and 
unrest,  which  inadequate  wages  invariably  cause,  will  become  eventu- 
ally a far  graver  menace  to  capital  than  a slight  lowering  of  the  divi- 
dend rate.  I claim  that  those  administrative  departments  which  fail 
to  pay  adequate  wages  are  just  as  inefficient  and  are  as  much  in 
need  of  having  their  efficiency  increased  as  are  those  administrative 
departments  which  fail  to  secure  an  adequate  return  for  the  owners. 


FAILURE  TO  MAINTAIN  REASONABLE  PRICES 

Consider  the  third  feature  in  the  measurement  of  the  efficiency  of 
the  administrative  department — the  duty  which  the  administrative  de- 
partment and  the  business  which  it  directs  owes  to  the  public.  This 
duty  is  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  public  the  goods  or  service  which 
the  public  needs  or  wants,  at  a reasonable  price. 

I do  not  believe  that  it  is  good  efficiency  to  charge  the  public  $10.00 
for  an  article  which  could  just  as  well  be  supplied  for  $8.00  if  the 
business  were  properly  organized  and  directed.  Yet,  this  is  what  many 
businesses  which  are  efficient,  from  the  capital  and  labor  standpoint, 
do  to  the  public. 

It  is  inefficiency  of  this  sort  which  leads  to  the  demand  for  govern- 
ment ownership,  supervision,  and  price-setting,  which  is  growing  up 
among  us.  The  public  never  has  grudged  and  never  will  grudge  a 
fair  profit  to  capital,  or  a fair  wage  to  labor.  The  public,  however, 
will  not  stand  and  should  not  stand  indefinitely  for  higher  prices  than 
are  necessary  to  secure  this  reasonable  return  and  reasonable  wage. 

3—6 


THE  IDEAL  EXECUTIVE 


To  what  are  these  inefficiencies  due?  Generally  speaking,  to  the 
same  things  that  cause  inefficiency  on  the  part  of  labor : lack  of  knowl- 
edge, lack  of  judgment,  lack  of  interest,  lack  of  training,  lack  of  in- 
telligence, and  lack  of  energy. 

The  ideal  executive  is  the  man  who,  after  careful  training  in  a 
well-run  establishment,  embarks  in  business  on  his  own  account  with 
his  own  money,  dependent  upon  his  own  efforts  for  his  success  or 
failure.  Such  a man  has  the  training  already  secured  in  his  years  of 
preliminary  experience.  As  he  usually  starts  in  a small  way,  he  be- 
comes familiar  personally  with  every  detail  of  his  business.  He  knows 
it  from  the  financial  side,  from  the  manufacturing  side,  and  from  the 
selling  side.  Granted  that  he  has  cultivated  good  judgment — he  has 
the  interest,  the  knowledge,  and  the  personal  touch,  which  should  lead 
to  success. 

As  the  business  becomes  larger,  through  his  success,  he  is  able 
gradually  to  lessen  his  attention  to  details,  and  to  maintain  his  personal 
grip  on  the  situation  through  statistics  and  reports  prepared  in  accord- 
ance with  his  directions.  Every  report  he  receives  he  interprets  in 
terms  of  the  personal  equation.  He  is  constantly  checking,  by  definite 
statistics  and  reports,  the  personal  impressions  received  in  his  daily 
intercourse  with  his  subordinates. 

If  such  a man  is  broad  enough  to  recognize  his  duties  to  his  em- 
ployees and  the  public,  he  should  become,  and  generally  does  become, 
the  highest  example  of  efficiency  in  the  executive,  and  builds  up  a 
highly  efficient  administrative  department.  It  is  this  type  of  man  that 
has  made  American  business  what  it  is  to-day,  and  it  is  on  this  type 
of  man  that  the  success  of  American  business  in  the  future  must 
depend. 

THE  INABILITY  OF  BIG  BUSINESS  TO  DEVELOP  EXECUTIVES 

The  great  weakness  of  our  big  businesses — of  our  trusts — lies  in 
the  scarcity  of  men  of  this  type.  The  success  of  the  various  units  of 
which  our  trusts  are  composed  has  generally  been  brought  about 
through  years  of  effort  on  the  part  of  a man  of  this  type. 

When  the  trust  is  first  organized  these  men  are  retained,  and,  hav- 
ing better  tools  to  work  with,  or  more  resources  at  their  command, 
they  are  usually  able,  while  they  remain  in  control,  to  show  better 
results  with  the  larger  business  than  they  have  been  able  to  show 
with  their  individual  units.  Presently,  however,  these  men  begin  to 

3—7 


retire  or  die  off.  They  must  be  replaced.  From  what  source  can 
they  be  replaced?  Men  of  this  same  type  are  running  their  own 
businesses — are  making  good.  They  cannot  be  lured  to  the  employ 
of  the  trust,  even  if  the  trust  were  able  to  find  them. 

If  you  think  it  is  easy  to  find  loo-point  executive  men,  based  on 
any  reasonable  expectation  as  to  standard  of  performance,  take  a 
contract  to  find  a dozen  or  so  of  them  within  an  ordinary  limit  of 
time.  Your  efforts  will  be  covered  with  about  the  same  success  as 
was  that  of  the  individual  who  camped  near  a frog  swamp  in  Jersey, 
and  thought  a contract  he  had  made  for  furnishing  1,000,000  frogs’ 
legs  per  week  to  New  York  hotels  was  one  of  the  really  sure  things 
of  his  time.  The  visions  of  plutocratic  indulgence  that  he  had  under 
consideration  were  knocked  into  a cocked  hat  before  the  first  week 
was  over  when  he  learned  to  his  sorrow  and  chagrin  that  there  was 
absolutely  no  mathematical  relation  between  the  noises  he  had  heard 
and  the  number  of  frogs  available  on  his  contract.  . 

The  trust  must  fall  back  to  the  higher  executive,  to  a man  devel- 
oped through  trust  methods.  However  able  such  a man  may  be,  how- 
ever good  a use  he  may  be  able  to  make  of  statistics  and  reports,  he 
cannot  possibly  have  that  close  personal  touch  with  the  various  details 
of  which  the  trust  is  built  as  the  man  who  originally  put  it  together 
and  directed  it. 

The  headquarters  of  the  corporation,  usually  being  situated  in 
New  York  City,  or  some  other  large  city,  or  in  a foreign  country,  are 
far  removed  from  the  actual  scene  of  operations.  The  plants  are  scat- 
tered around  the  country,  and  no  man,  however  active,  can  hope  to 
become  intimately  and  personally  acquainted  with  all  of  them.  The 
administration  becomes  gradually  more  machine-like,  more  and  more 
red  tape  is  introduced,  and  the  human  element  is  eliminated. 

Who,  for  a moment,  imagines  that  the  sugar  trust,  as  adminis- 
tered to-day,  is  as  well  handled,  from  the  owner’s  point  of  view,  as 
when  administered  by  Havemeyer?  Who  imagines  that  the  Standard 
Oil  Company,  which  has  reached  the  highest  efficiency  in  all  possible 
directions,  under  the  administration  of  Rockefeller,  could  have  con- 
tinued that  efficiency,  even  if  it  had  not  been  interfered  with  by  our 
courts,  with  Rockefeller’s  dominating  influence  withdrawn? 

It  is  in  these  facts  that  the  inherent  w’eakness  of  big  business  and 
our  trusts  lies.  Their  successful  operation  in  the  future  depends  on 
the  solution  of  these  problems. 

3-8 


THE  NATURAL  INEFFICIENCY  OF  HUMANITY 


The  inefficiency  of  the  administrative  departments  of  smaller  busi- 
ness is  due  to  the  natural  inefficiency  of  humanity.  The  majority  of 
men  are  satisfied  with  well  enough,  instead  of  the  best  possible.  The 
majority  of  administrative  departments  are  satisfied  to  operate  their 
businesses  along  old  lines,  with  a moderate  degree  of  success,  instead 
of  studying  themselves  and  forcing  themselves  on  to  greater  activity 
and  greater  success. 

Many  of  the  executives  of  these  small  businesses  have  neither  the 
training  nor  the  knowledge  which  is  required  to  operate  a business 
successfully.  They  may  depend  wholly  upon  the  personal  touch,  when 
we  all  know  the  personal  touch  must  be  backed  by  the  general  reports 
and  statistics.  They  may  depend  wholly  upon  reports  and  statistics, 
when  we  know  that  reports  and  statistics  must  be  backed  by  personal 
familiarity  with  every  detail  of  the  business  involved.  They  content 
themselves  with  doing  what  others  have  done  before  them,  rather 
than  putting  forth  any  new  lines  of  action,  new  lines  of  activity. 

What  is  true  as  to  the  individual  regarding  his  inability  to  maintain 
a constant  high  pressure  of  enthusiasm  and  initiative,  when  the  easy 
things  have  been  done,  when  the  novelty  has  been  worn  off,  or  as  in 
the  case  of  athletics — ^when  the  candidate  '‘goes  stale” — is  equally 
true  of  an  administrative  department;  applying  to  all  branches  of  the 
service,  as  well  as  to  the  organization  as  a whole.  These  periods  are 
called  “plateaus”  by  one  noted  writer;  and  be  it  here  stated  that  any 
executive  department  or  individual  who  takes  root  on  a plateau  is 
hopelessly  lost. 

Having  knowledge  of  these  possibilities,  as  we  study  results  from 
the  efficiency  standpoint,  the  wise  administration  will  adopt  prompt 
corrective  measures,  and  see  that  the  entire  organization  does  not  get 
stale  at  the  same  time.  The  executive  “punch”  is  just  as  essential  as 
the  individual  punch,  and  provisions  must  be  made  for  continuing  a 
reasonably  good  punch  at  all  times  and  an  exceptional  one  every  once 
in  a while — as  often  as  the  candidate  is  good  for  it. 


HOW  TO  INCREASE  ADMINISTRATIVE  EFFICIENCY 

The  problem  before  this  organization  is  to  increase  the  efficiency 
of  these  administrative  departments  in  big  business  and  little  business. 
Better  methods  for  executives  to  follow  must  be  marked  out.  We 
must  secure  from  executives  and  administrative  departments  which 
3—9 


are  undoubtedly  efficient  a definite  statement  of  how  that  efficiency  is 
obtained.  We  should  circulate  the  results  of  this  investigation. 

Standards  should  be  gradually  established  for  return  from  the  capi- 
tal, for  wages  to  be  paid  employes,  and  for  excess  of  selling  price 
over  actual  labor  and  material  cost,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
public.  We  should  establish  ways  of  measuring  actual  results  accom- 
plished in  terms  of  these  standards,  and  encourage  executives  to  apply 
these  measurements  to  their  own  conditions.  We  should  encourage 
executives  to  submit  their  results  and  their  methods  to  a committee  of 
expert  executives  for  criticism  and  suggestion. 

In  my  opinion  the  greatest  opportunity  for  increasing  efficiency  of 
the  business  world  as  a whole  lies  in  increasing  the  efficiency  of  its 
administrative  departments. 

3—10 


i 


I 


12  0723460c 


